Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology

The Korean Society of Environmental Health and Toxicology (환경독성보건학회)
권호 표지

Risk Communication Study for Nanotechnology Using Risk Cognitive Map

위해인지도 맵을 이용한 나노기술 리스크 커뮤니케이션 연구

  • Choi, Chan-Woong (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation) ;
  • Jeong, Ji-Yoon (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation) ;
  • Hwang, Myung-Sil (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation) ;
  • Jung, Ki-Kyung (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation) ;
  • Lee, Hyo-Min (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation) ;
  • Lee, Kwang-Ho (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
  • 최찬웅 (식품의약품안전평가원 식품위해평가부 위해분석연구과) ;
  • 정지윤 (식품의약품안전평가원 식품위해평가부 위해분석연구과) ;
  • 황명실 (식품의약품안전평가원 식품위해평가부 위해분석연구과) ;
  • 정기경 (식품의약품안전평가원 식품위해평가부 위해분석연구과) ;
  • 이효민 (식품의약품안전평가원 식품위해평가부 위해분석연구과) ;
  • 이광호 (식품의약품안전평가원 식품위해평가부 위해분석연구과)
  • Received : 2010.04.03
  • Accepted : 2010.07.19
  • Published : 2010.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nanotechnology is the fastest growing area in scientific research and it has important applications in a wide variety of fields. Nevertheless, consumers encountered this new technology without any identification of risks and benefits. Also until now, there are no specific safety evaluation methods for nanotechnology. For this reason, we studied risk communication strategy for nanotechnology to prepare its application in commercialized products on public. A survey was conducted to identify the differences in perception between public (N=110) and expert (N=37) toward applied nanotechnology in food, drugs and cosmetic products. The survey results were used to draw up a risk cognitive map which was introduced by Paul Slovic, and the perception level of public and expert on nanotechnology was evaluated. As a result of the survey, public recognized nanotechnology as "unknown but low dread" risk factor, but expert recognized it as "unknown and high dread" risk factor. These results indicate that there are perception differences between two groups. Several risk communication strategies are reported including care, consensus and risk communication. In the case of nanotechnology, it contains both risks and benefits. Considering the nature of nanotechnology, the "consensus communication" which informs consumers about risks and benefits of issues is the most appropriate strategy.

Keywords

References

  1. 과학기술부, 한국과학기술기획평가원. 나노기술영향평가보고서 2005.
  2. 차용진. 위험인식과 위험분석의 정책적 합의: 서울과 수도권 일반주민을 중심으로, 한국정책학회보 2007; 16(1): 97-116.
  3. Cui D, Tian F, Coyer SR, Wang J, Pan B, Gao F, He R and Zhang Y. Effects of antisense-myc-conjugated singlewalled carbon nanotubes on HL-60 cells, J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2007; 7(4-5): 1639-1646. https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2007.348
  4. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J and Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 2006; 1(3): 153-155. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2006.155
  5. Ligade VS, Sreedhar D, Ajay M and Udupa N. Nanotechnology in cosmeceuticals: Benefits vs risks, Cur Sci 2007; 93(5): 597.
  6. Lundgren RE and McMakin A. Risk communication: a handbook for communicating environmental safety and health risks (2nd ed). Ohio: Battelle Press; 1998.
  7. Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E and Oberdorster J. Nanotoxicology an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles, Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113(7): 823-839. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7339
  8. Powers KW, Brown SC, Krishna VB, Wasdo SC, Moudgil BM and Roberts SM. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part VI: Characterization of nanoscale particles for toxicological evaluation, Toxicol Sci 2006; 90(2): 296-303.
  9. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering nanotechnology working Group. Nanotechnology: Views of the General Public, Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the Nanotechnology study, 2004.
  10. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E and Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public, Nat Nanotechnol 2007; 2(12): 732- 734. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.392
  11. Slovic P. Perception of risk, Science 1987; 236(4799): 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  12. Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk, In Perception of Risk, Lofstedt RE (eds), EARTHSCAN, London and Sterling. 1986; 2000: 183-198.
  13. Slovic P, Fischhoff B and Lichtenstein S. Facts and Fears, Understanding Perceived Risk. Schwing RC and Albers WA Jr (eds): Societal Risk Assessment, How Safe is enough? New York: Plenum Press 1980. pp. 181-214.
  14. Woo JM, Ryeom TK, Hwang JH, Oh WY, Jang DD and Lee HM. The successful risk communication strategies for food risk factors, Safe Food 2007; 2(2): 11-18.
  15. Yoon CS. Potential health risks and issues of nanoparticles, Biochem News 2007; 27(3): 7-19.